Right or wrong, the Euros came to America and conquered the natives, as they did on other continents. That's their history. You seem to think we owe them more for what we did 100+ years ago, I don't see a precedence for that. For example, did the Romans put Greeks who didn't want to assimilate into "reservations"? Are there still Aztec reservations in Central America?

I'll give you credit for going all gung-ho on this one. It does follow logical thought that if Caucasians mercilessly slaughtered millions of certain race, that Caucasians should have no problem making offensive pictures of them.

I understand the usual American MO is to blow the shit out of millions of civilians in another country, and then spend the next decade rebuilding it so they can take over our outmoded industries. So furnishing the native Americans with reservations, and allowing them to run tax-free businesses (like casinos) pales in comparison to what we've done for the Japanese. I still don't consider them "oppressed".

So we have all these other mascots mocking these different groups of people, yet if there's one of a people who were massacred long ago (the same thing they were doing to the whites, BTW), that's wrong.

It all goes back to this, the idea that racism can not be against whites, is bullshit. You're not going to convince me that caucasians are not discriminated against based on the color of their skin.

Spin wrote:I understand the usual American MO is to blow the shit out of millions of civilians in another country, and then spend the next decade rebuilding it so they can take over our outmoded industries. So furnishing the native Americans with reservations, and allowing them to run tax-free businesses (like casinos) pales in comparison to what we've done for the Japanese. I still don't consider them "oppressed".

So we have all these other mascots mocking these different groups of people, yet if there's one of a people who were massacred long ago (the same thing they were doing to the whites, BTW), that's wrong.

It all goes back to this, the idea that racism can not be against whites, is bullshit. You're not going to convince me that caucasians are not discriminated against based on the color of their skin.

Well, I don't want to be the one to pop the sheltered suburban bubble you live in, so go ahead and believe that the discrimination against you is even remotely comparable to discrimination other groups have faced.

I've been denied local government jobs that I already had tht training for and had years of experience in. Skipped over for people of another race or gender who had no training (that cost the cities thousands of dollars) and in many cases s had no business being in that job.

But if that's not enough to repay what my forefathers are accused of doing to these races (they were still in Italy during the Indian slaughters and the slavery) then I guess I have more to pay. Take away Chief Wahoo, if that helps pay my dues.

Manwhile the Braves and colleges still have the ridiculous tomahawk chop and that ignorant chant. I'm not native American and that shit makes me embarrassed. Take that ignorant garbage away and I'll give up my Chief Wahoo hats. And pajamas. And thong.

Spin wrote:I've been denied local government jobs that I already had tht training for and had years of experience in. Skipped over for people of another race or gender who had no training (that cost the cities thousands of dollars) and in many cases s had no business being in that job.

But if that's not enough to repay what my forefathers are accused of doing to these races (they were still in Italy during the Indian slaughters and the slavery) then I guess I have more to pay. Take away Chief Wahoo, if that helps pay my dues.

Manwhile the Braves and colleges still have the ridiculous tomahawk chop and that ignorant chant. I'm not native American and that shit makes me embarrassed. Take that ignorant garbage away and I'll give up my Chief Wahoo hats. And pajamas. And thong.

As FUDU says, we're getting way off track, but I'm sorry to hear that such a qualified and talented individual has had it tough every once in a while. It would be a real shame if your inability to find a job led to you and everyone in your community being forcibly moved to a part of the country that the government deemed unusable, until they decided it was usable, then they'd move you all again. That might be real tough, right?

I do like the attitude that you'll only consider doing the right thing when someone else gets inconvenienced as well. Because all of this is solely about finding a way to harass the dude from the burbs of Akron.

Not what I said, and you know that. That you need to twist my words is not surprising.

Looking back on what you said, I noticed you threw in their "HAVE suffered". Not now suffering. This is my generation , I wasn't around back then when they were kept from getting jobs because of the color of this skin. All I said was what sense does it make to discriminate against me now? To try to make iit up to the previous generations who went through much worse? Two wrongs don't make a right, especially when the wrong was a couple generations ago.

So your in an occupation where there is no reverse descrimination . Good for you. Just stick with what you know...

But I think we've pissed off the board enough as it is.

Not much else. To talk about. Pretty sad. But until the regular season and draft, we need something to keep the lights on here. Even if it beating the dead and decaying horse.

Last edited by Spin on Wed Mar 12, 2014 4:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

A hilarious and warped oversimplification. I'll try to keep an eye out for the most other things in the world that are a grossly incorrect characterization of a historically oppressed population. I'm sure they're common.

No it really isn't a warped oversimplification, when you take it in context. There are tons of issue that some people are for and some against, tons of things that some are offended by and some are not. It's been that way since long before you and I were here, and it will be that way long after you and I are gone.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

Spin wrote:Looking back on what you said, I noticed you threw in their "HAVE suffered". Not now suffering. This is my generation , I wasn't around back then when they were kept from getting jobs because of the color of this skin. All I said was what sense does it make to discriminate against me now? To try to make iit up to the previous generations who went through much worse? Two wrongs don't make a right, especially when the wrong was a couple generations ago.

So your in an occupation where there is no reverse descrimination . Good for you. Just stick with what you know...

Since your argument is now reserved to nit-picking verb tenses, let me amend - have suffered and are still suffering, and likely will continue to suffer in the future (does that cover enough for you?).

Who said it makes sense to discriminate against you? Who said to wrong you? Jesus H Christ. Motherscratcher is right, you can't get past the idea that this is about more than you and that bubble you live in.

No it really isn't a warped oversimplification, when you take it in context. There are tons of issue that some people are for and some against, tons of things that some are offended by and some are not. It's been that way since long before you and I were here, and it will be that way long after you and I are gone.

It is a fact that some people are offended by Chief Wahoo and some are not, and that holds true within the NA community as well. You know what is not a fact, that the Chief Wahoo logo is racist. It is the opinion of many it is and the opinion of many others it is not.

Hence there is two sides to this, both sides have people making arguments.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

It is a fact that some people are offended by Chief Wahoo and some are not, and that holds true within the NA community as well. You know what is not a fact, that the Chief Wahoo logo is racist. It is the opinion of many it is and the opinion of many others it is not.

Hence there is two sides to this, both sides have people making arguments.

About 150 years ago there were people who thought slavery was a bad idea and a lot of other people who thought it was just fine. Both sides making arguments.

*not comparing this to slavey. Just pointing out that even when there are two side it doesn't mean that one of them isn't wrong.

Sure but context, like you said slavery cannot be compared to this. There is no way to spin that slavery wasn't abhorrent, of course it is pretty easy to say that growing up generations and a 100 years after said era (meaning none of us have a clue what we would have felt if we lived in those times, when it was more much "normal" even across the entire globe). The act, the inception and even the concept of slavery is inherently wrong, the same cannot be truly said about Chief Wahoo.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

peeker643 wrote:I'm soooo gonna shoot this dog of a thread Old Yelller style and put it out of my misery.

I'll just make another one. And it will get another 70 comments in less than a week.

Actually, I thought about responding to FUDU completely missing my point a few posts back but decided it was pointless and it was better to let it die a natural death. You can't blame it on me that it's back.

FUDU wrote:Again, it bears repeating, if you feel that Chief Wahoo is a representation of racism, do you feel those that wear Chief Wahoo apparel are racist?

I know, it's a tough question.

No, it doesn't bear repeating and the question is pointless. If I find it racist, or if I find the people wearing it racists means nothing.

If the NATIVE AMERICANS, or a large enough percentage of them, find it racist and those wearing it racists...then it is racist.

I don't necessarily disagree with you about NAs having the significant voice in such a matter, that point has been brought up in the past and even the point of to what degree does the NA community have to be in a consensus? I won't even address the last portion of that sentence.

mo, the point I tried to make to you, regarding your comments relating to slavery, is simply that slavery is inherently wrong. The idea itself promotes inhumane treatment of others, there's not even an argument to debate the intent of holding a person as a slave. IOW the context is the context.

That's not the case with something like Chief Wahoo, a sport mascot/logo. Like I've said can it be viewed as insensitive, sure, I see that. But this whole idea that it IS racist, to the point that it is blatant and beyond obvious is an extreme POV and borders on absurdity. It's a sports logo, the context does in fact matter when it comes to what the mascot is "saying". Such representations are almost ALWAYS cartoons and caricatures. If the government was constructing a monument in Montana as a symbol of NAs part of our history, so we never forget about the true history of this country, and it had Chief Wahoos face on it I would completely agree with you, that it is wrong, disgusting and even racist.

Which led to my question. If someone thinks Chief Wahoo is inherently and blatantly racist then by that extension why wouldn't they think others sporting that apparel are intentionally being insensitive and even racist? If it's so blatant and obvious how could those people even think of putting on that hat.

7foot3 wrote:Your sole concern seems to be that people don't call you racist. Same thing as said to Spin. Sometimes shit is about more than you.

No offense 7'3 but that is just a flat out stupid take. I'm not even against the removal of Chief Wahoo if it were to happen, and to spin it as if I think it's about me or not about something bigger, Christ. You're the one with the extreme perspective on this, not me.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

Again as Fudu asked, to what degree? How many true NA's still exist, and how many of them give a shit about the Indian's cartoon character?

And again, nobody is going after San Diego State for making fun of the Aztecs. What if there are distant descendants of the Aztec Empire who are offended by that? If we're going to go all bleeding heart on a conquered nation, it's only fair to treat them all the same.

pup wrote:If the NATIVE AMERICANS, or a large enough percentage of them, find it racist and those wearing it racists...then it is racist.

What's the percentage?

Interested because it will affect a thousand other issues and you'll finally be establishing some parameters for the disenfranchised.

All of them.

Everywhere (in this country at least- in many countries those disenfranchised are beheaded or disemboweled).

So let us know asap.

If 10% are outraged and 90% don't give a shit, how does that affect the Chief?

What if it's 25% and 75%?

Does it have to be a majority?

So, if we can just cut to the chase and answer my questions above as well as whether this requires an announcement from front office that Chielf is done as ooposed to the fact it's clearly (if not tacitly) being phased out, do we still need to discuss it?

So let me say, as someone that doesn't give a shit about the cartoon character logo, that it appears to me that the Indians are phasing it out quietly and without a lot of fanfare or commotion despite the vast majority of all people being either fine with it or not giving a shit one way or the other, and with the great majority of native americans falling into one of those two categories as well.

If I'm wrong just show me the numbers. More than willing to take a look.

So let me say, as someone that doesn't give a shit about the cartoon character logo, that it appears to me that the Indians are phasing it out quietly and without a lot of fanfare or commotion despite the vast majority of all people being either fine with it or not giving a shit one way or the other, and with the great majority of native americans falling into one of those two categories as well.

If I'm wrong just show me the numbers. More than willing to take a look.

If you don't give a shit, click on another thread.

Which percentage of native americans are fine with it or not giving a shit?

So let me say, as someone that doesn't give a shit about the cartoon character logo, that it appears to me that the Indians are phasing it out quietly and without a lot of fanfare or commotion despite the vast majority of all people being either fine with it or not giving a shit one way or the other, and with the great majority of native americans falling into one of those two categories as well.

If I'm wrong just show me the numbers. More than willing to take a look.

If you don't give a shit, click on another thread.

Which percentage of native americans are fine with it or not giving a shit?

I didn't ask you what the percentage was. I asked what the percentage needs to be for it to be of concern and for consideration or action to be warranted.

That's a purely subjective question that requires no research, but rather your opinion. But your preference appears to be to speak in cliches and platitudes.

"In 2004, the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Public Policy Center found that 91 percent of Native Americans were not offended by the term “Redskins.” Similarly, in 2002 Sports Illustrated found that 81 percent of the Native Americans they interviewed that lived off of a reservation were not offended by Native American mascots, and that 53 percent that did live on reservations were also not offended."

FUDU wrote:No offense 7'3 but that is just a flat out stupid take. I'm not even against the removal of Chief Wahoo if it were to happen, and to spin it as if I think it's about me or not about something bigger, Christ. You're the one with the extreme perspective on this, not me.

If you think the relevant question to ask is if people who wear Wahoo are going to be considered racist, then, yeah, I can't help but assume that's your concern.

And lol at peeker using those survey results which have been called "“troubling at best, not especially reliable and not really a study of American Indian understandings of mascots, but a kind of ill-conceived looting from which knowledge could be manufactured rather cynically for the next news cycle”

I get where you're coming from Peek, but I don't think there is some minimum threshold that needs to be reached to then allow us to stand up and deem something as racist. Some things are just racist in and of themselves...objectively. And even if someone does a poll or Rick Reilly says not to worry about it because his father in law is cool with it, that thing can still be racist.

Nobody would make Little Black Sambo and put it on the sleeve of their jersey and their hat and try to defend it because it's honoring the black author of the story. And Spin should be able to look at that and say "yeah, that's kind of racist, maybe we shouldn't do that" even if he says he knows a few black dude' should don't mind. And it shoudnt take 22.783% of African Americans to tell us in a gallop poll that they don't like it before we give a shit about it.

And that was my point that FUDU kept missing. He kept wanting to think I was comparing slavery to Chief Wahoo, which is clearly fucking ridiculous. My point was that the Chief is wrong even if you think you can find enough people who aren't bothered by it, just as slavery was wrong even if, long ago, you could take a trip through Mississippi and find a large majority of people who were fine and dandy with it.

I personally think that maybe it's important to stand up and voice support to small, unheard minorities when the cause is right. I mean, Chief Wahoo...just look at that fucking thing.

FUDU wrote:No offense 7'3 but that is just a flat out stupid take. I'm not even against the removal of Chief Wahoo if it were to happen, and to spin it as if I think it's about me or not about something bigger, Christ. You're the one with the extreme perspective on this, not me.

If you think the relevant question to ask is if people who wear Wahoo are going to be considered racist, then, yeah, I can't help but assume that's your concern.

And lol at peeker using those survey results which have been called "“troubling at best, not especially reliable and not really a study of American Indian understandings of mascots, but a kind of ill-conceived looting from which knowledge could be manufactured rather cynically for the next news cycle”

At this point I can only conclude you're being obtuse, b/c you're not making much if any sense now. If you're going to present the argument that CW is blatantly and glaringly racist (and that is essentially what you are saying/implying) then by extension of that logic, in your mind, people that would sport CW apparel would be doing so full well knowing it is a racist gesture, deeming them in your mind racist. Otherwise why would people sport such an item that is so obvious in its symbolism.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

motherscratcher wrote:I get where you're coming from Peek, but I don't think there is some minimum threshold that needs to be reached to then allow us to stand up and deem something as racist. Some things are just racist in and of themselves...objectively. And even if someone does a poll or Rick Reilly says not to worry about it because his father in law is cool with it, that thing can still be racist.

Nobody would make Little Black Sambo and put it on the sleeve of their jersey and their hat and try to defend it because it's honoring the black author of the story. And Spin should be able to look at that and say "yeah, that's kind of racist, maybe we shouldn't do that" even if he says he knows a few black dude' should don't mind. And it shoudnt take 22.783% of African Americans to tell us in a gallop poll that they don't like it before we give a shit about it.

And that was my point that FUDU kept missing. He kept wanting to think I was comparing slavery to Chief Wahoo, which is clearly fucking ridiculous. My point was that the Chief is wrong even if you think you can find enough people who aren't bothered by it, just as slavery was wrong even if, long ago, you could take a trip through Mississippi and find a large majority of people who were fine and dandy with it.

I personally think that maybe it's important to stand up and voice support to small, unheard minorities when the cause is right. I mean, Chief Wahoo...just look at that fucking thing.

mo I've seen your strat teams so I know your a smart guy (at least with small ball and rotations) , which is why I don't understand you presenting this as such a "case closed" and one sided debate. THAT is the unreasonable perspective in all this. Plus I'm not so sure you really understand the background of the whole little black sambo thing either, it's not that fitting an analogy.

Again, if CWs face was atop the shoulders of a NA monument that was intended to pay homage to the NA community and stand as a reminder of this country's history I would be 100% in your corner saying how ridiculous it is for such a representation. But that isn't what is going on with CW, hence context and intent being relative. It's a sport logo, as virtually all sports logos it is done in a cartoonish and rather unrealistic way. That doesn't mean it CAN'T offend or ISN'T controversial and sensitive so some, it just means that it is not inherently such. Otherwise why are there NAs who are not bothered by it one bit.

Which brings up peeker's and pup's back n forth. So what would be the requirement/magic number of %s that would determine if it is OK in the NA community? One great thing about this country is how we do stand up as a voice for minorities (not just in skin color either), well what about if that minority was just 10 people? What if those that did like CW were in the minority...I know that is getting a little absurd. Plus how do we determine who exactly has a say, I'm pretty sure pup wouldn't want to know I'd have a vote (I have NA blood, not that I would even attempt to voice my opinion via a vote), would you have to be 100% NA, 51%, etc. I agree the NA community owns the right to be the voice on such an issue, but even if they formed a consensus proclaiming CW racist, that doesn't mean it actually is. It just means we should honor and respective their sensitivities to the issue, which again I have no problem with.

But this is far from a "CW is racist, it just is" issue.

Frankly, IMO, we are living in hyper sensitive times when it comes to all things tolerance.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

FUDU wrote:No offense 7'3 but that is just a flat out stupid take. I'm not even against the removal of Chief Wahoo if it were to happen, and to spin it as if I think it's about me or not about something bigger, Christ. You're the one with the extreme perspective on this, not me.

If you think the relevant question to ask is if people who wear Wahoo are going to be considered racist, then, yeah, I can't help but assume that's your concern.

And lol at peeker using those survey results which have been called "“troubling at best, not especially reliable and not really a study of American Indian understandings of mascots, but a kind of ill-conceived looting from which knowledge could be manufactured rather cynically for the next news cycle”

LOL at the guys who won't voice an opinion or answer a simple question and then LOL at something that actually was researched.

Cite your sources as to the percentage of people who find the logo or name racist or insensitive. Please. It would make things so much easier to discuss.

It was a two minute Google search. Which is two minutes more than you or Pup will take to quantify when a reaction is required. So when you guys actually answer the question then I think we can look further at the issue. Or you can stand behind the Mapplethorpe argument which will allow YOU to decide what's insensitive.

How much of the native american population has to object or find the logo (or name) racist before it should be changed?

I can't ask it any more simply than that.

How many people need to be offended on ANY subject for their to be a response?

motherscratcher wrote:I get where you're coming from Peek, but I don't think there is some minimum threshold that needs to be reached to then allow us to stand up and deem something as racist. Some things are just racist in and of themselves...objectively. And even if someone does a poll or Rick Reilly says not to worry about it because his father in law is cool with it, that thing can still be racist.

Nobody would make Little Black Sambo and put it on the sleeve of their jersey and their hat and try to defend it because it's honoring the black author of the story. And Spin should be able to look at that and say "yeah, that's kind of racist, maybe we shouldn't do that" even if he says he knows a few black dude' should don't mind. And it shoudnt take 22.783% of African Americans to tell us in a gallop poll that they don't like it before we give a shit about it.

And that was my point that FUDU kept missing. He kept wanting to think I was comparing slavery to Chief Wahoo, which is clearly fucking ridiculous. My point was that the Chief is wrong even if you think you can find enough people who aren't bothered by it, just as slavery was wrong even if, long ago, you could take a trip through Mississippi and find a large majority of people who were fine and dandy with it.

I personally think that maybe it's important to stand up and voice support to small, unheard minorities when the cause is right. I mean, Chief Wahoo...just look at that fucking thing.

I disagree. Not that Wahoo isn't over the line and offensive but that it is on a res ipsa locquitor basis. It's not to some people. Clearly.

I could argue exactly the opposite. That in this day and age if it was clearly and unambiguously racist that the Indians wouldn't have it on their sleeve, hats or anything else.

It's subjective, Mo.

And maybe those minorities are unheard because they truly aren't bothered by it. Other than a minority of that minority. I'm not saying that's the case. I'm saying if you can show me that a majority of the NA population is offended then I'm with you. If the majority either aren't offended or actually support then I have no issue if it stays.

But I'm not interested in the blustering pie holes that scream loudest on either side.I don't give a shit about the logo or the tradition or anything else. If it's insensitive to those it portrays then chuck it.